Fight Seen Over Immigrant-Education Program

Washington--Educators and some Congressional allies are pressing for
changes in proposed regulations for the new immigration act that they
fear would severely limit funding for educational services to aliens
eligible for legalization under the law.

The Department of Health and Human Services "is choosing, at every
point, to define things through the narrowest definition for
educational purposes," said an aide to Representative William F.
Goodling, Republican of Pennsylvania, who is generally credited for the
inclusion of educational benefits in the law.

A parallel battle is shaping up in California, where state officials
are at odds over how much of the state's allocation--more than half of
about $1 million in funding available under the immigration act--will
be earmarked for education.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 established a process
through which illegal aliens who have been in the U.S. for five years
can become legal residents; it also created new penalties for employers
who hire illegal aliens. The law requires most candidates for
legalization to demonstrate proficiency in English and some knowledge
of American government.

Last-Minute Addition

A last-minute addition to the massive bill provided federal funding
to reimburse states for costs they will incur in providing health,
welfare, and educational services to the newly legal immigrants.

Strapped for time, and concerned that education expenses could
"consume the whole of the state allocations," as one Democratic aide
put it, lawmakers cited in the bill the Emergency Immigrant Education
Act, a grant program aiding states that must educate illegal alien
children.

That move incorporated many of its rules into the new funding
program, including a provision that restricts spending to $500 per
alien.

When h.h.s. issued proposed regulations for the program in August,
its Congressional authors and their constituents were not pleased with
the way h.h.s. interpreted the immigration law and its relationship
with the related education act.

The immigration law provides that funding be allocated to states
based on the number of eligible aliens residing there and on estimates
of what each state will spend serving them.

For fiscal 1988, which began Oct. 1, the agency proposes to
calculate state allocations based on 1984 federal estimates of what
states spent to serve each person receiving health and welfare
services.

In its proposed regulations, which appeared in the Aug. 13 Federal
Register, the agency said it had not come up with a satisfactory way to
measure education expenses, and proposed estimates of $500 per eligible
alien, "the maximum amount that may be paid for education costs" under
the immigration law.

Hhs expects actual educationcosts to be lower, the regulations said,
because many aliens will have "acquired" English proficiency while
living in the United States, and some agricultural workers are not
required to demonstrate proficiency to qualify for legalization.

Disagreement on Cost

But at a recent Education and Labor Committee hearing in Los
Angeles, called by Augustus F. Hawkins, Democrat of California and the
panel's chairman, local educators said almost all eligible aliens would
need some type of education to qualify for legalization, and it would
cost far more than $500 per person.

Los Angeles schools turned away 40,000 applicants for
English-as-a-second-language courses last year, witnesses said, arguing
that it would cost $47 million to serve everyone who would need English
instruction under the new law.

Congressional aides said last week that legislators did not intend
the $500 cap to be applied the way h.h.s. plans to apply it.

States were to estimate their total cost, for education as well as
other services, and the money was to be allocated among states on that
basis, aides said. Then each state would be able to spend up to $500
per alien on educational services, with the remainder going to other
programs.

The immigration law also requires that a state's estimate be reduced
by the amount of any federal funding--such as adult- or
bilingual-education funds--already being used to provide the same
services to aliens that would be funded under the new law. Educators
and their Congressional supporters fear that h.h.s. plans to make the
subtraction from its proposed $500 per alien.

Other Limitations Questioned

Also under attack is a provision in the proposed regulations that
would exclude from services aliens who have been enrolled in school for
three years or more. The immigrant-education act includes that
restriction, but aides said the immigration act specifies that this
provision is not to apply to the newer law and provides an alternate
description of who will be eligible for services.

Congressional aides were less firm in their support for an argument
advanced by educators and civil-rights advocates that funds under the
immigration act be available to provide basic education to aliens
beyond the English and civics instruction they will need to qualify for
legalization. The proposed regulations would prohibit the expanded
services.

"The question is, what are we really trying to do for these new
Americans?" asked Shirley Thornton, deputy superintendent for special
programs in the California department of education, in an interview.
"Are we going to provide enough education to make them productive
members of a technological society?"

If the new citizens are not offered sufficiently advanced training,
they will not succeed, she said, and "we will pay the money later" in
increased welfare costs.

Comments Will Be Weighed

Norman Thompson, the h.h.s. manager in charge of the immigration
act's regulations, refused, through a spokesman, to discuss the issue.
The department is reviewing comments on its proposal and will take them
into consideration, the spokesman said.

Congressional aides who met with Mr. Thompson and other h.h.s. aides
recently said they hoped that some of their concerns would be
accommodated. But they doubted the agency would issue guidelines on how
states are to spend their allocations, as favored by some educators in
California.

The immigration law requires that states spend at least 10 percent
of their allocation on each of the three service areas covered: health,
welfare, and education. But beyond that, state governments have
discretion over the money.

A preliminary plan for spending California's allocation earmarks
funding only for adult-education programs to prepare immigrants for
legalization, and specifically states that no funding will be earmarked
for services to children in elementary and secondary schools.

At the Los Angeles hearing, several witnesses--noting the large
number of non-English-proficient students in California's public
schools-- argued that more bilingual-education funding would be
required to prepare such young immigrants for legalization.

Wayne Johnson, president of United Teachers-Los Angeles, pointed
specifically to the need for more trained bilingual teachers.

Ms. Thornton and others asked for more specific federal instructions
as to what states' spending priorities should be. But she said last
week that "it makes no sense for agencies to fight over a pot of money
that's not large enough. We need the federal government to come through
with the dollars."

Web Only

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.